1. By the power of the Mother of Mercy and Knowledge – Kwan-Yin – the “triple” of Kwan-shai-Yin, residing in Kwan-yin-Tien, Fohat, the Breath of their Progeny, the Son of the Sons, having called forth, from the lower abyss, the illusive form of Sien-Tchang and the Seven Elements:
“Mr. Kingsland: What I wanted to get at was this; science conceives of the transmission of light as a transmission through a certain medium. Supposing you have a long stick, and you hit one end of it without the stick as a whole moving – you have the transmission of the knock from one end to the other. There is nothing transferred from this end to the other end. We wish to know whether it is the same in the case of light, or whether there is actually a transfer of particles from the radiant object to us.
Mme. Blavatsky: I say there is a transfer of particles.
Mr. Holt: Are they transmitted as light shines through glass? Do these transmitted particles pass through the glass?
Mme. Blavatsky: These particles can pass through anything. All these things are nothing to them. It is just the same as the spirit passing through a wall.
Mr. Holt: It does not partake of the nature of matter. It is matter, but on another plane.
Mr. Gardner: Although it manifests on this plane.
Mme. Blavatsky: It manifests – not in particles, because they are not particles in our sense, but they are rays, they are radiant energies. It is very difficult to explain. They are emanations or breaths. I am afraid you won’t understand me.
Mr. B. Keightley: There was a great dispute that went on between somebody and Newton, who had this theory, the corpuscular theory; he formulated it. Then that has been superseded in the opinion of modern science by the [ ] theory of waves and vibrations along the stick.
Mme. Blavatsky: The corpuscular theory as it was presented by Newton, and the wave theory – the one that stands now through the ether that they were obliged to admit they took from them the ancients, however disagreeable it was for them – both of them are wrong. In both, according to occultism, there are right premises, and yet wrong conclusions. The thing is all muddled up both ways.
It is excessively difficult, but perhaps in time we will come and coin words for things that you will have understood well; but until we have coined these words – upon my word, it seems almost hopeless to explain to you.
For instance, I have an idea perfectly clear and perfectly true to me; I know what it is. How can I explain it to you, even if I had at my command all the technical expressions used in physical science, and so on? I cannot, because there are not such expressions in existence.
Mr. Kingsland: No, but there are always analogies.
Mme. Blavatsky: But the analogy is very different for me. I am not at all of a scientific mind. I never learnt modern science in my life. All that I know is simply by reading, and sometimes not paying great attention to it. I know in some cases I had to learn, because I had to refute and I had to disprove it, but in general, I don’t know; it does not interest me, because I know it is a flapdoodle, which will change tomorrow. Why should I go and cobweb my brain by learning all the lucubrations?
Every day they invent something else, and on the following day you have to modify it or make away with it, or insult it in some way or other. I don’t want to learn anything more, because one has the trouble of learning and unlearning.
For you men of science who follow it, it is very easy – you remember the things you give up – but upon my word, I have too much of the occult theories that I have to learn and explain to you and go and bother myself with the physical science, which I hate.”
H. P. Blavatsky